An Email from overnight:
Here’s how I would analyze inconsistency with B033 under general principles of law.
A legislative body can repeal an old resolution (or, for that matter, an old law) BY IMPLICATION, without naming and explicitly repealing the old resolution
If GC 2009 adopts a resolution inconsistent with B033, the rule of thumb would be that the new resolution implicitly repeals B033 TO THE EXTENT of the inconsistency.
The effect of the new resolution on the old one is ultimately a question of legislative intent.
Exactly.
This makes sense. The proof will obviously come if the HOB consents and a non-celibate gay or lesbian candidate is elected to the episcopacy. I have no doubt that reappraisers will move quickly to test the limits of D025,
Well, if we are to take ++Rowan’s comment seriously, he is seeing the intent of D025 as a repeal of B033.
Creighton+ is right [in the report of Rowan’s ‘regret’]: this is now all at the HOBs’ feet. They must chose this day whom they will serve. And why should this not be at their feet? Isn’t this what it means to be a Bishop? To lead God’s Church? Just because the HOB of TEC is not used to functioning this way doesn’t mean they cannot or should not now.
Of course this is a repeal of B033. How can anyone in their right mind argue otherwise? B033 said TEC would not ordain any more partnered gays as bishop. D025 now says they will. How is it not a repeal of B033?
Uh-oh, someone who reads English has detected the F-U-D-G-E.
I would note that the headline misstates the content of the e-mail (at least that part of it that is quoted). The e-mail states only than a subsequent resolution may repeal a previous resolution without directly naming and repealing it; it does not state that D0125 actually does so.
As it is said, the prior resolution is repealed (or amended) to the extent of the inconsistency. There is also a rule that where there is ambiguity the two enactments shall be read not to contradict rach other where possible. It is quite easy to interpret the two resolutions as not in conflict. F025: God has called gay and lesbian persons in committed relationships to ministries [implication: including that of bishop] and the existence of such a call is tested through the Episcopal Church’s discernment process. B033: the Episcopal Church is asked to exercise gracious restraint by refraining from selecting and consecrating such persons anyway, out of respect for the rest of the Communion. After all, restraint involves not doing something that one has or may have the right to do.
Of course the motive of some/many of the drafters is to cause B033 to be ignored, and any diocese will be able to interpret B033 as being repealed if it chooses to do so. The proper interpretation of the effect of the later resolution is important only insofar as those assessing it are interested in good order and lawfulness in the church, and such people seem to be few and far between.